|
Rating
|
 |
  |
Lurvee Lily xx <3  
|
||
  Dec 2 2006, 05:49 AM
|
first of all, i hate the use of the word "like" used in excessiveness like that, nothing personal. i have an ISFAT about it somewhere...
anywho.. 2- A 13 yr old going out with a 17 yr old in the state of Victoria is illegal if they start having sex or doing anything of that nature. Her bf can be charged with rape. If what you imply by "serious" is this, tell her to be careful. 3- being teased at that age for not having your first kiss is stupid. kids are growing up to fast... there are 12 yr olds who have had sex... isnt it really sad? its merely the fault of the media... they are the ones who are promoting this sort of crap. why cant kids just be kids and teenagers be teenagers without having to worry about things that adults worry about in relationships? its alright to be in that age and maybe have a quick fling... but i cant see how your friend could have had that long a relationship at that age and possibly that low a maturity compared to the majority of 15/16 yr olds who have that long a relationship.
|
Gahh I KNOW! Its so wrong.. like.. a few of my 13 year old friends have had sex and almost all of them have gone one step further than kissing.. but.. i feel presured into kissing.. like my friend got forced to kiss this guy and she hated it.. and i think that this girl and her boyfriend havent had sex.. well i hope not.. lol.. but yeah... he is a really nice guy so i dont think he would pressure her.. but gah i feel so annoyed at all those peoples who tease me! hehe.... anyway... thanks for that.. you made me see sense.. im not going to kiss anyone until i want to.. hehe thanks.. Lily xx <3
|
That's some fucked up shit right there. What is that 17 year old guy, retarded? That's what's known as statutory rape, and if you want, you can anonymously dob that twisted fuck in.
|
No worries Lily, and yes you are right Insanekilla. pretty much, if anyone reports it to the authorities hes basically a goner
|
I didnt have my first proper kiss until i was 15. There's nothing wrong with waiting until your mature enough to do something about it.
|
Correction, Slywolf. 'Do someone* about it.'
Hehe 
|
Sex at 13 thats just really wrong.
and really 13 year old girls are not mature enough to be with a 17 year old even if they pretend to be It just sounds gross
|
eh...dobbing the 17yr old in would be pointless. it wouldnt get anywhere. u could anonymously dob him in - but damn...whats the point? the police cant act on that they need a little bit more substance. on top of that, "rape" cases like this tend not to go too far - too hard to prove things when both parties are willing.
|
I think maturity is a lot more important than age. So it really depends on how they're handling the situation. If your friend wants to grow up, let her. It's the same decision as not wanting to grow up. It depends on the person. As long as they're being safe and not getting diseases or pregnant or anything, it's not that big a deal. Back in the olden days, that's around the time girls started having sex anyway. It's probably better she's in a serious relationship than screwing around with lots of boys (or girls) anyway.
|
I'm going to cut in here and just say, that is retarded. There is no way possible that a 13 year old girl could be emotionally ready or mature enough for sex. That's just wrong. A 17 year old, hormonal boy would only take advantage and failure to realise this is just short sighted.
This post has been edited by insanekilla: Dec 4 2006, 05:43 AM
|
insanekilla...that is pure ignorance to suggest all 13 year old girls do not possess maturity enough to be sexually active. i think you'd be more than mildly surprised to find that many of them are capable of making mature decisions in that subsection of our lifestyles... i'm not saying all, not even a majority... but not all 13 yr olds are immature dickheads. maturity comes with age, and puberty occurs earlier and earlier according to recent trends - so there is no question why some 13 year olds are mature enough or ready to become sexually active. i think u belong in the family first party... at least labor and liberal recognises this with our consent laws.
|
You sir, are a self-righteous dickhead. A 13 year old girl has not the experience, nor the appropriate development to make such a decision. There is a reason that the age of consent is 16. It's almost disgusting to think that a 13 year old girl could honestly be making an informed decision when choosing to have sex.
Also, the fact that you yourself said that only *some* 13 year old girls can make the 'correct' decision (there isn't even a correct decision. A 13 year old girl should never have to be confronted with the proposition of sex), you must then realise that for the safety of all 13 year old girls, a blanket decision must be made. If you say it's acceptable for some 13 year old girls to have sex and not others, it becomes impossible to draw the line. It's impossible to know whether or not a 13 year old girl is emotionally mature or not. It is SAFER, however, to assume that she is not. Whilst a little girl may seem outwardly strong, inwardly, after the sexual act, you don't know whether it will rip her apart emotionally or not. You just do not know. That's why many people would agree that all actions must be taken to prevent girls who are below the age of consent from having sex. Don't make me out to be some radical nutjob to discredit this argument, because all it does is show just how poor yours is.
|
yes...the age of consent is 16. yet... if u r above 10 u can legally have sex. why was this decision made? because the government recognised that being sexually active is closely linked to maturity which cannot be determined by a single age. hence... the age of consent laws are fragmented as such...so fuck off buddy. and to the argument that 13 yr olds shouldnt be confronted with the proposition of sex... maybe they're not, maybe they're propositioning someone else.
and the experience? well fuckin duh. if a blanket decision is made til they're 16... how would they be experienced? saying they dont have the experience is no argument when ur arguing that they shouldnt be having sex. the issue is not whether or not they should be having sex... because too bad, they are. the issue is how old are the respective individuals involved in the act. 13 or 17 - the law doesn't disagree with them having sex, nor do i... and considering these laws are not exactly being argued with strongly, it can be assumed society don't disagree. it's whether or not they are having sex with each other, 13 and 17 year olds that is the issue - that is what society and we disagree with. so boh to u ignoramus.
|
Okay, before I rebut your abomination of an argument, I feel this must be said. I have put up with your horriffic spelling/grammar for long enough. You come across to me as fucking illiterate.
1) They're called paragraphs 2) It takes .2 of a second to elongate 'u' into 'you' and 'r' into 'are'. 3) Half your sentences don't make sense because they are so poorly punctuated. I won't respond to anymore of your posts after this one until you learn the fucking English language. Now, onto the poorly conveyed content of your post. It's legal if you're above 10 years old to have sex with somebody, but only if they're two years above you or less (to the best of my knowledge). And we're not debating whether or not kids having sex with kids should be illegal. I am talking about a 17 year old dickhead taking advantage of a 13 year old girl. And that is just wrong. To say, "if she's emotionally ready, then she's ready." is just negligent. You're ignoring the fact that the male in the relationship could be pressuring her into it. Also, without a proper psychological evaluation you wouldn't even know what kind of effect it would have on her. Also, when I said 'experience' before, I meant world experience, not sexual experience. As kids grow older they gain a better grasp of the world, hence they are maturing, equipping them with the vital experience they need in making these kinds of life-altering decisions. At 13 years old, a girl has not had enough time to make this kind of decision.
|
insanekilla, what makes you think you know so much about 13 year old girls, anyway, let alone, what they want?
While you think it's wrong for girls to assume that they're experienced at that kind of age, I think it's wrong for you to assume that you actually know anything about a girl at the age of the 13. Same applies with you, kiki. People are free to do whatever/whoever they want, regardless of age. Law doesn't/shouldn't dictate how people live their lives. Not in this case, anyway! Besides, in this scenario, what makes you think that this 17 year old is a "dickhead" who's "taking advantage of the girl"? It's not as if he's been drugging her for the past year and a half. He's 17, I'm sure he could do a whole lot better than a 13 year old, and I'm sure it's likewise for her. The age difference really wouldn't allow for them to last so long, usually, but it has - so what makes you think it's so wrong? People have serious relationships, despite age gaps. Get over it.
|
My god, you would make the worst parent in the world. May you never have children.
Can you not see the DANGER in letting a 13 year old girl, or for that matter a 12 year old girl or 11 year old, or a 13 year old boy or a 12 year old boy ETC. make that kind of decision? THEY ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH. Let's go over that again. They do NOT have the worldly wisdom to A) make an informed decision B) be able to predict the ramifications or C) know how to deal witht he aftermath. In this modern age, children are losing their innocence faster and faster. This is not through any natural or evolutionary doing, either. What must be maintained, however, is the resilience of those with any kind of authority in preventing children from the dangers of underage sex. Many people forget about the psychological side of sex. It can rip people apart. You, prostitot, who would be so quick to advocate underage sex simply because it 'may be what she wants', fail to realise that at that age how could a little girl POSSIBLY KNOW what she wants (in regards to sex)? That's why people who have since lived out full lives, and people who are far older than us, far older than 13 have made these decisions. The age of consent laws weren't some snap decision by a frigid tightarse in Canberra. They were deliberated upon and debated by people with the appropriate experience. I'll finish with my main argument. It is completely irresponsible to LET a child make the decision to be sexually active. They should not have to be confronted with this decision at least until 16. Before this, it's up to the parents and now the state (in Australia) to educate them about sex, and how to deal with it. And even if this child is the world expert on sex, NOTHING could prepare a child for some bastard having sex with her, then leaving her out to dry and never speaking to her again. NOTHING could prepare a child for an extremely bad sexual experience that wreaks havoc on her psychological wellbeing and NOTHING could prepare a child for the looks of disgust on their fellow peers faces, should they find out what happened. The only thing we can do is equip children with the knowledge they need in the time that they have, so that come the time that they are adolescents they CAN make good decisions.
|
i think my assumptions prostitot are somewhat reasonable... im not arguing the 17 yr old is a dickhead, or that he shouldnt be with the 13 yr old full stop. im arguing simply that a 13 yr old may have the capacity to deal with the decision of whether or not they will have sex. there isn't much difference between a 13yr old and a 16 yr old. ill paint a picture. a 17 yr old friend of mine knows as much as about sex as rocket science. the limited education she received in yr 8 was barely enough to allow her to make an informed decision when it came to sex... she decided to have sex, she didnt see it as a mistake and doesn't regret one bit - but she walked into it somewhat blindly. my 14 yr old cousin on the other hand knows more than i do about sex, in fact he was correcting me once in a discussion (and im no angel). he made the decision doesn't regret it and the difference was between him and my 17 yr old friend, his decision was informed. he was 14 - he doesn't think he made the wrong decision, nor do i. that's all that matters - not pompous assholes dictating to people what decisions they should make.
...such a fragmented response... but prostitot this is basically supporting what u're saying 
|
right so on the basis that alot of young teens have sex with older men and were ok with it we should let allll young teens have sex with older people, sure 9 out of ten might love it, but what about the 1 who is emotional crippled for the rest of her or his life over the event, i mean its like letting 13 year olds drive, i mean sure most CAN do it...
the idea is to protect those who ARNT ready for sex, those who are probably will do it anyway, and if they regret it well the goverment cant be held responisble can it. and 13 year olds might think they are mature, but think back 6 years ago, were you an idiot then? of coarse you think you were, same as you might think your oh so smart and intelligent and ready to take on the world right now but in 6 years your probably gonna think you were an idiot at this age!!!! and if a 13 yr old makes the decision in her dilutional state of mind that she can handle sex and the reprocustions she should think about having sex with some one closer to her own age, 4 years is one hell of a difference in teenagers, sure this paticuler 17 yr old might be an angle and is not dating this 13 yr old for sick and perverted reasons (these reasons elude me) but we are trying to protect the rest of the 13 yr olds who arnt blessed with a fantastic lover from those perverted 17yr olds!!!!!!!!! I REST MY ZOMBIE! This post has been edited by slurpee: Dec 5 2006, 10:32 AM
|
based on ur argument slurpee. we should never have sex and live life in a constantly 'dilutional' state. if we look back every 6 years and regret it... fuck, we're gonna be regretting the day we were born, the day we learnt to walk, the day we learnt to talk, the day we learnt to read, the day we learnt to write. twisted logic huh??
and if the idea was to protect people from sex who aren't ready for it - then why do we place an emphasis on age? let me refer to some by the way statements made by judges in the past "there is no reason to suppose that age always confers wisdom, a sense of responsibility is not the exclusive province of those over the age of eighteen, or even sixteen, and a judge is entitled to draw upon her own experience in life in recognising that youth alone does not prevent the practice of good decisions." "...sometimes the age of a litigant can be the least relevant measure for assessing maturity, and indeed relying upon chronological age can amount to discrimination." my point is... if the law, or as u state, we are attempting to prevent those not ready for sex from having it - then placing an age on readiness is not the key. u may be 21 and not ready for sex, yet u may be 12 and are. denying maturity and responsibility based on a chronological age even the most learned chief justices operating within the confines of our legal system, recognises its flaws. sex is no small decision - but it should not be denied to anyone based on their age. i'm not saying its right for 40 yr olds to molest 6 yr olds. naturally there must be some balance, but suggesting merely on the basis of being 13 one is not ready, or not the capacity to handle such a decision, is nasty business and flawed. This post has been edited by kiki: Dec 5 2006, 11:15 AM
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th Jun 2013 - 05:38 PM |